You do know that some Christians actually believe the World was created in 6 days, right? There are actually some here that believe that. You wouldn't want to be put in that group just as my friend would hate to be confused with a group who believes "Jesus and Satan are brothers.

According to the Bible:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 2:2

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

1. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution is true, thus invalidating the claim that the earth was created in an extremely short timespan

or

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

Whether or not that is a claim that has any supporting evidence is another matter entirely. There are multiple branches of science which have accumulated an overwhelming amount of corroborating evidence which would tend to lead right-thinking people to a different conclusion.

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

Was it really necessary to point out that anyone who takes the time to learn what the science shows will know that the world wasn't created in 6 "days"? Yes, considering the alarming number of people that believe so, I would state that it does indeed appear to be necessary.

1. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves evolution is true, thus invalidating the claim that the earth was created in an extremely short timespan

or

2. Discuss the overwhelming evidence that proves the bible is not a text that can be taken word for word literally as truth, which should allow the ideas of faith and evolution to cohere and form one belief for you (as it has for me).

Since option 2 is how I feel right now, try investigating the original hebrew text. The word in hebrew is not 'day' but 'yowm' which could be translated into 'day' 'era' 'age' or 'time'. Thus, it took God 6 "eras" or 6 "ages" to create the earth and on the 7th, he rested.

11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind.

20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Q

I don't want to get my hopes up, but it's like the planets are aligning or something.

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

Oh, so trees and all that stuff grow in one day --clearly a basic science fact.

Quote:

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

As I understand it, being Christian and believing in the bible are not synonymous claims.

The plants had to go without pollination for an era(s)? If that was true they would've died (that's basic science). So, it had to be in one day.

Actually no. Not at all. Not even close. Plants don't require animals to pollinate, they're actually quite fine on their own. Many actually can self pollinate if the need arises (ie if there are no animals around).

Angiosperm reproduction is also quite different from the reproduction of gymnosperms, don't forget. (ie double fertilization to form the cotyledons in the seed coat).

Your rudimentary knowledge of "science" is not enough to indicate anything. By the way, some plants have evolved to have adaptations to allow plants to have more variation. These adaptations include tricking animals into helping pollinate, instead of using the wind and proximity to do it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS

I don't understand how you can claim to be a christian, and then claim you don't believe the Bible (or at least say so by saying you believe in evolution). Does it not say to love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength? And, to love God is to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word).

Because unlike fundamentalists, I think critically about what I believe. I can love God with all my heart without disagreeing with Evolution.

(By the way to love God is not "to love (and obey) his teaching (or his word)". To love God is to Love God.)

The Bible is a book, (even you can agree) that was written by humans. Humans have biases and predjudices, have points of view and make mistakes. So the original writers could have made an error. And then, the people who translated it from Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek (respectively) to Latin and then English could have also done the same.

I believe in what the bible is saying, but more an overall sense. "Adam and Eve" weren't writing down the story of creation in the nude so who wrote it? And who's to say that they wrote it perfectly?

Riddle me this:

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 1

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

and

Show spoiler

(hidden content - requires Javascript to show)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Genesis 2

4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

8And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

10And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

11The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;

12And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone.

13And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

14And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.

15And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

20And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

21And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

25And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

The real question is, why do these two stories (Gen 1 and Gen 2) differ? More, how is it possible for them to differ?

I honestly don't see the problem. You asked a question and received an answer, and Achilles added his opinion. Religious thoughts, no matter how much they mean to you, are not above correction if they interfere with the knowledge we have of the world we live in.

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists. Whether you think the world evolved or was created by someone/thing, the OP made it clear he was talking about a passage. Whether you think said material is "full of it" is immaterial. However, it might have helped some people here if he'd added "according to the Bible" (though it was clearly implicit in his post).

Actually, the English text you provided could be interpretted two ways. He finished his work on the 7th day and rested or he finished it by the end of day 6 and rested all of the 7th. However, noone was around to see any of this and mimartin's point is quite valid. If God created the universe, then surely He could pollinate the plants w/o the help of insect or animal.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists. Whether you think the world evolved or was created by someone/thing, the OP made it clear he was talking about a passage. Whether you think said material is "full of it" is immaterial. However, it might have helped some people here if he'd added "according to the Bible" (though it was clearly implicit in his post).

Actually, the English text you provided could be interpretted two ways. He finished his work on the 7th day and rested or he finished it by the end of day 6 and rested all of the 7th. However, noone was around to see any of this and mimartin's point is quite valid. If God created the universe, then surely He could pollinate the plants w/o the help of insect or animal.

....really?

Your continuous lack of comprehension when it comes to these debates is starting to become a bit suspicious. If you read the OP (including where I was quoted) you'd see that this thread was spawned from a mini-debate Rev7 and I were having because I touted evolution over the 6-day theory. His bible verse is a representation of his point of view. He's presented a claim and hopes to have us prove it false (to the extent we can).

So the material being "full of it" is in fact not so irrelevant. In fact, it is inherent to this debate, one that you seem woefully confused with. And if he had added "according to the bible" it would have made this thread absolutely pointless, something I thought was implicit as well. Guess we were both wrong

....really?
Your continuous lack of comprehension when it comes to these debates is starting to become a bit suspicious. If you read the OP (including where I was quoted) you'd see that this thread was spawned from a mini-debate Rev7 and I were having because I touted evolution over the 6-day theory. His bible verse is a representation of his point of view. He's presented a claim and hopes to have us prove it false (to the extent we can).

Seriously, dude, can the snarkiness. It's obvious from the context of the quotes that Rev7 provided that he's talking about a question of 6 vs 7 DAYS (days/eons/eras whatever you want to call it). It wasn't a question of religion vs science as achilles derided it with his aside. He didn't ask if it was correct that it was 6 days vs 4-6 billion years. Your whole argument about miscomprehension is, as usual, misplaced. Leading me to question your motives as well. Even you referenced quote shows that the debate revolves around the # of "days" and not whether God or evolution/big bang created the earth. My observation about achilles' comment was spot on, your apparent inability to comprehend that notwithstanding. Frankly, when you read the question in the OP, it's pretty explicit that he wants top know whether the answer is 6 or 7 (not whether "skydaddy" had a hand in it at all).

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

No problem, it would be easier to discuss in a thread. I am open minded to this. I do believe that evolution has occured--that can be proven. I know that micro-evolution has occured; however, I do not think that macro-evolution has occured.

At any rate, I am interested in what you have to say, so I will most likely start a thread. You mentioned to start one in the Senate....?

Does that sound like 6 v 7 days to you? Talk of evolution?

I guess it's not so obvious what he meant, since you're still having trouble with it.

Actually, his opinion wasn't necessary, nor was it topical. It was merely an opportunistic slap at theists.

I disagree. I think it was an opportunistic slap at poor critical thought.

And I think it *is* necessary to point out that an a priori acceptance of religious superstition over empiricism and scientific observation is just plain silly. If someone wants to publicly post his/her superstitions in a debate forum, he/she should be prepared to defend those superstitions rationally and have the silliness objectified.

That the statement is a "slap at theists" is wrong. Completely and utterly. There are plenty of theists who are also "right thinking" when it comes to science and reality. There is simply no good reason to accept believe the planet was "created" according to the biblical myth or according to any other ancient myth.

Genesis 1-11 (roughly) is mythical, not historical. That idea that one must hold to what is essentially Young Earth Creationism as literal scientific fact in order to be a "true Christian" (or true Jew) is simply incorrect, and at least a billion will disagree with you if you say it does.

And before somebody says "well that's just a modernist cop-out" I'll have you know that allegorical interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures (including Genesis) is at least 2,000 years old.

Of course there is a difference between claiming the creation was a short process vs. it was a recent AND short process, but either one presents insurmountable problems with the mountain of scientific evidence.

But there's always the real cop-out that God miraculously created the universe in a week, and made it only appear as if it were billions of years old (which I don't hold to either, in case you were wondering)! This may be well within God's power, but it also begs the question...

I disagree. I think it was an opportunistic slap at poor critical thought.

And I think it *is* necessary to point out that an a priori acceptance of religious superstition over empiricism and scientific observation is just plain silly. If someone wants to publicly post his/her superstitions in a debate forum, he/she should be prepared to defend those superstitions rationally and have the silliness objectified.

That the statement is a "slap at theists" is wrong. Completely and utterly. There are plenty of theists who are also "right thinking" when it comes to science and reality. There is simply no good reason to accept believe the planet was "created" according to the biblical myth or according to any other ancient myth.

If his question had been 6 days vs 4-6 billion years, I'd agree with you. While I think you make some valid points otherwise, I'd say you're wrong about the nature of the potshot.

Now, I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country.---Patton

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.---Teddy Roosevelt

I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception.---Groucho

And if you all get killed, I'll piss on your graves.---Shaman Urdnot

How would you like to own a little bit of my foot in your ass.---Red Foreman

The original Hebrew language leaves some wiggle room for interpretation as to 6 literal 24-hour days as we know them (although how is there any way to tell how long a day is before creation of the Sun?) or 6 discreet "steps" of somewhat indeterminate length.

So each "day" as described could be years (perhaps millions or billions) long.

In that sense, the scientific and religious accounts could be seen as almost lining up to a certain extent. (Big bang creation of the universe; formation of stars; formation of our sun and solar system; Earth becoming a wet planet; evolution of the animal world; the rise or humans...)

Although, one has to wonder: For a deity of such power, why bother to do it in steps at all? Seems to me the authors of the book were imposing humanistic limits on their creator.

Then there's the not so small issue of 2 separate and somewhat differing creation stories in the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis.

Then there's the not so small issue of 2 separate and somewhat differing creation stories in the first couple of chapters of the book of Genesis.

Which is consistent with a culture that was in the process of moving from a set of polytheistic cults to a monotheistic one, which borrowed heavily from, and embellished just as heavily, existing Mesopotamian mythology (i.e. Gilgamesh, the earliest known written story).

So each "day" as described could be years (perhaps millions or billions) long.

Indeed it could. However even if we were to resolve this one issue, it still would not match what modern cosmology tells us about the formation of the universe.

To your point, why would it take an omnipotent being 6 million/billion years to create a universe? He/she/it is capable of kicking off the big bang with a thought, yet we need multiple generations of stars/novae in order to form heavy elements? What do we win by successfully shoe-horning actual science into a 2000 year (or more ala OT) old series of stories?

Indeed it could. However even if we were to resolve this one issue, it still would not match what modern cosmology tells us about the formation of the universe.

Not exactly... you'd have to be super-generous in looking for the parallels.
But it could be the super-condensed, ultra-simplified version for folks who really don't want or care about the science facts, and just want to know that it was done at all.

I agree... but there will always be those that just never want to hear it.

My theory is that if you can get someone to accept the fact that the words of Genesis and the scientific knowledge we have of the formation of the universe aren't completely in conflict... then you've gotten a door that was completely sealed-shut open perhaps a tiny bit.

I agree... but there will always be those that just never want to hear it.

Okay. Then those individuals should a) politely excuse themselves from the conversation due to a self-professed lack of interest and b) stop insisting that the scientific community pander to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by edlib

My theory is that if you can get someone to accept the fact that the words of Genesis and the scientific knowledge we have of the formation of the universe aren't completely in conflict... then you've gotten a door that was completely sealed-shut open perhaps a tiny bit.

And you might be correct. My thinking is that you don't foster an interest in math by letting kids believe that 2+2= whatever number they want it to equal until they are old enough (???) to decide on their own that they are okay with it being 4.

It's not even close to "splitting hairs". There is no "kind" in our taxonomy. "Species" means something and tells us something specific. "Kind" does not.

If noah (allegedly) took two of every "species" onto the ark, then we know that he took two chihuahuas, two wolves, two great danes, two pekineses, two labradors, two golden retrievers, etc, etc, etc. That's just a smattering of "dogs". Let's do this for "cats", "horses", "cows", etc and compare it to how big we're told the ark is (vs how big it would have to be).

Aside: Wikipedia tells me that there are 34 species of deer. Memory tells me that there are more than 300,000 species of beetles.

If noah (allegedly) took two of every "class" onto the ark, then we know that he took two "dogs" (not very specific as we know that "dog" is a very vague reference to a very long list of possible species). He took two "cats" too? Great. Same problem as above. Does that mean he took two lions or does that mean he took two house cats (Felis catus)?

So, please, feel free to demonstrate how I am indeed "splitting hairs" by clarifying for me precisely what "kind" means. Thanks in advance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Also nobody answered my question...

You have one previous post in this thread. It does not contain a question.

Well whatever races/species/kinds/genres or however you like it nitpick away to your own heart's content (on someone else's time mind you), I will use whatever terminology I am familiar and comfortable with thank you very much.

On-topic; I don't believe the world was actually created in 60 days (nor do I believe religion had a thing to do with the process). Now for my actual question since Achilles was kind enough to rectify for me, why and how could such a complex and wondrous world such as ours come to exist in only 6 days...to me it doesn't seem feasible.

Also to add onto before, I don't believe it was ever specified in the bible just how many different classifications of animals Noah brought aboard the Ark, all we know are 2 of every kind a male and a female. I'm not aware of how many different breeds/off-shoots of animals existed in that time frame, however I know if it were even 10,000 BC there would be a significant difference in the animals that popular culture assumes were all on the ark (2 chimps, two giraffes, two bears, two camels, etc.) Also how would Noah be able to travel all over the globe in enough time to gather such a bestiary before the flood happens? Pangea broke off into different countries a long time ago, so the selection of animals would be slim for the area he was in. Which brings me to ask, is he Santa Claus and does he have access to a super sled guided by eight reindeer?

Well whatever races/species/kinds/genres or however you like it nitpick away to your own heart's content (on someone else's time mind you), I will use whatever terminology I am familiar and comfortable with thank you very much.

This is not an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

On-topic; I don't believe the world was actually created in 60 days (nor do I believe religion had a thing to do with the process). Now for my actual question since Achilles was kind enough to rectify for me, why and how could such a complex and wondrous world such as our come to life in simply 6 days...to me it doesn't seem feasible.

Good for you. The scientific evidence agrees.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Also to add onto before, I don't believe it was ever specified in the bible just how many different classifications of animals Noah brought aboard the Ark, all we know are 2 of every kind a male and a female.

Oh, so you do what to discuss this after all. Once more: please define "kind".

Here is a wikipedia link on biological classification (specifics on the taxonomy are shown in pretty colors on the right). Please point out which of these you suggest we equate with "kind".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

I'm not aware of how many different breeds/off-shoots of animals existed in that time frame, however I know if it were even 10,000 BC there would be a significant difference in the animals that popular culture assumes were all on the ark (2 chimps, two giraffes, two bears, two camels, etc.)

"All" what? There are 2 species of chimpanzees. Which are you referring to? When you say "bear" do you mean "Panda bear", "black bear" (asian or n. american?), "brown bear"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Also how would Noah be able to travel all over the globe in enough time to gather such a bestiary before the flood happens?

A good question. Another one is, how was he able to travel all over the globe to deposit specific species where we find them (i.e. marsupials in the Australia, etc) before the animals died?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Pangea broke off into different countries a long time ago, so the selection of animals would be slim for the area he was in.

An valid argument which makes the mistake of assuming that the noah's ark myth actually transpired as well as many other things. Pangea split about 250 million years ago. The events from the noah myth are said to have occurred <6000 years ago. There is no mention of continental drift in the bible so there is no reason to assume that the authors were aware of it. Even so, we have no reason to believe that there would have been fewer animals around then anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Which brings me to ask is he Santa Claus and does he have access to a sled guided by eight reindeer?

9 if you accept the Rudolph mythos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M@RS

Noah didn't have to take beetles, they can breath underwater just fine because they "breath" through their skin.

Well there goes the argument for how noah managed to take care of all the animal waste.

Since you didn't like that example (either you missed the point or are purposely attempting to avoid it): were you aware that there are more than 350 species of squirrel? One boy, one girl means at least 700 squirrels were on the ark (assuming that "kind" = "species"). But squirrels are small and don't take up much room, right? I notice you didn't offer commentary on the deer. Those are pretty big last time I checked. Again, we know how big the ark was. How soon before we start running out of room?

"All" what? There are 2 species of chimpanzees. Which are you referring to? When you say "bear" do you mean "Panda bear", "black bear" (asian or n. american?), "brown bear"?

Again, splitting hairs. But I'm sure that since you hold Phd's in zoology and philosophy. Of course I am only assuming such doctrines transpired in the first place, but you knew that already...

Quote:

A good question. Another one is, how was he able to travel all over the globe to deposit specific species where we find them (i.e. marsupials in the Australia, etc) before the animals died?

If we go by the classical myths we can assume there were limitless possibilities for Noah; he could have clicked his heels together three times, could have summoned a giant flying stingray to fly him from place to place, or he could have driven a sled.

Quote:

An valid argument which makes the mistake of assuming that the noah's ark myth actually transpired as well as many other things. Pangea split about 250 million years ago. The events from the noah myth are said to have occurred <6000 years ago. There is no mention of continental drift in the bible so there is no reason to assume that the authors were aware of it. Even so, we have no reason to believe that there would have been fewer animals around then anyway.

In making an argument you are either going to assume that something either happened or it didn't, I suppose I should have phrased it; "hypothetically speaking since Pangea broke off into different countries years ago, etc, etc". Thank you for the lesson, no really. Anyway I will willfully eject myself from the "conversation" before a moderator decides to do it for me. Plus I would hate for anyone else to miss out on the opportunity for a decent altercation...erm debate.

No, it's not "splitting hairs" as I have repeatedly pointed out. Your insistence that it is doesn't make it so (it's also not a counter-argument). If you insist on using the word "species", please do so correctly. If you insist on using the word "kind", please tell us what that means. I fail to understand what is so complicated about this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

But I'm sure that since you hold Phd's in zoology and philosophy.

Neither, but then again, I don't see why either would be necessary. One does not need to be an expert to speak intelligently about a subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

Of course I am only assuming such doctrines transpired in the first place, but you knew that already...

Please help me understand what this means?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

If we go by the classical myths we can assume there were limitless possibilities for Noah; he could have clicked his heels together three times, could have summoned a giant flying stingray to fly him from place to place, or he could have driven a sled.

I'm not sure where any of this is discussed in the book of genesis (i.e. the primary source of the "classical myth"). Are you arbitrarily redefining again, or was every bible I've ever read missing the "flying stingray" part?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blix

In making an argument you are either going to assume that something either happened or it didn't, I suppose I should have phrased it; "hypothetically speaking since Pangea broke off into different countries years ago, etc, etc". Thank you for the lesson, no really.

Nothing you've said here addressed my point(s). You're conflating thing that did happen (per the evidence we have for them) with things that were said to have happened.